Holy shit Billo’s a fucking jackass. I mean seriously – I haven’t met Dawkins in person, but know a few people who have and I have seen him both in person and on a few interviews. I get the very distinct impression that is a just not in his nature to lose his cool – yet there’s Billo, pressing him to do just that.

Of course I can’t imagine trying to stave off such a concentration of the stupid.

I think Dawkins should make ‘no questions from the last book’ a prerequisite to interviews. Surely he’s having no trouble getting word out about the book. And this insistence on debating the last book has to be tiring.

I wonder what the correct words are to say to people like O’Really, to get them to understand their lack of logic. He is trying to say that because science doesn’t have evidence for everything, science class can then present ideas that don’t have any evidence. How can he not see the illogical jump that he has made.

I completely agree with him that science must have evidence to be presented in science class, but then how can he say that religion doesn’t need evidence to be presented in science class. A lack of consistency is one of the easiest types of logical errors to notice, so why can’t he see it?

I wonder what the correct words are to say to people like O’Really, to get them to understand their lack of logic.

I’m of the opinion that O’RLY actually does understand that his argument fails on logical grounds. He simply doesn’t care.

For the people who honestly do belive zealously in their delusion, twisting logic around in any way they can to support their religious beliefs, I can only say that I think there is no hope. I’ve dealt with a few of them, and I think that no amount of logic or ratinality will ever sway them from their delusion.

On an individual basis, I don’t think it’s possible to justify the time spent in refuting their delusions for their edification. However, I do see some merit in providing correct analysis and information to others who might witness such an exchange. Some people watching may yet be saved from a life of ignorance.

I find it remarkable, although not surprising, when this accusation of dogma and/or fascism is levelled at science. It really cuts to the core of the problem, because people like O’Reilly neither know nor care how science is actually practised. The only ideology they know how to deal with is one of centralized authoritarianism, and so they have deep conceptual problems with belief systems which do not operate that way. Therefore, they assume that because science states its case so clearly, it must also be centralized and authoritarian. They never read Nature or Science, so they don’t see that what looks like hard and fast fact is actually only the best explanation so far. Or if they do see it, they don’t care, because arguing, vociferously, from authority has been all they have ever known, and therefore, if there are gaps, all that’s required to fill them is someone who can shout out louder fairytales than the other guy. Sad really.

What I find unacceptable from Oreilly is the way he destroys rational discourse by pre-supposing a dichotomy with an Usthem entrenchment: Atheist vs religion.. Who ever said faith and science are mutually exclusive? The only rational thing Oreilly said was that science cannot provide the moral teaching that he assumes only religion can.But even there Oreilly is wrong because it has been scientifically proven that morality can exist and even thrive without religion.

Like many have said: I must credit Dawkin’s lucid and well reasoned responses to Orelilly’s nonsense.

My podcasts: : Ikonokast

Mike and Greg converse on the subject of the geology and geography of Arizona and the red rocks of Sedona. The rocks tell the story of the ages of the earth, and this is a pretty chapter. We also talk about the end of ScienceBlogs, which has been a seminal collective that set the tone …

In the podcast, you may hear Mike refer to John as a “Vulcan Historian.” What Mike meant to say is that John J. McKay is a historian with a specialty in the history of the Balkans, and that is an important distinction. He is also interested in the many weird theories that abound to explain …

We don’t do too many shows on cuisine, but this week we asked scientist and author Bill Schutt to speak with us about his research in cannibalism. His new book, Cannibalism: A perfectly natural history, explores the behavioral and evolutionary biology of cannibalism in general, and within that context, examines cannibalism among humans. Cannibalism: A …

With the election of Donald Trump and the apparent takeover of most of the US by the anti-science Republican party, we thought we should turn to Canada for inspiration and ideas. Katie Gibbs tells us about Evidence for Democracy, which runs issue-based campaigns and educational projects that support well informed, fact-based, smart policy decisions by …

Dan Fincke is a philosopher who focuses on skeptical thinking and science. We asked Dan to speak with us about the apparent, but perhaps illusory, rift between philosophy and science. By the end of the podcast, we pretty much solve that problem. Dan Fincke’s Web Site is here, where you can find out about the …

Author and science philosopher Shawn Otto returns to discuss the presumably dire situation faced by modern civilization and science in particular with the election of an explicitly anti-truth, anti-science administration in Washington. Shawn Otto was the first guest on this podcast, click here to listen to that excellent interview. The War on Science: Who’s …

We speak with climate scientist Michael Mann about his research in global warming, climate change denial, and his new book, The Madhouse Effect. Professor Mann is also the author of Dire Predictions (2nd edition), an accessible rendition of the scientific basis for climate change volume of the IPCC report, and The Hockey Stick and the …

Emily Cassidy talks with us about the conflict between feeding the world’s population and destroying the word’s environment in the process. We discuss GMOs, the Farm Bill, and agriculture, mainly in the US.

Christie Wilcox speaks to us about her new book, Venomous, and the science of venom and venomous animals. We also explore how venom and venomous creatures play a role in some rather bizarre human behaviors. What’s the difference between poisonous and venomous?

Dr Don Prothero speaks with us about geology, creationism, aliens and UFOs, bigfoot, the process of writing science books; texts as well as for popular consumption. Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future by Donald Prothero.